otb, Poirot, nor I, nor you care particularly about Slipper.

You refuse to see the point Poirot is making. It is that entities like the LNP and individuals within it care not for justice by vexaciously using the justice system as a pawn for political gain. When Slipper was their man he was lauded by Abbott and protected over his "expenses".

To put it plain, Abbott will sell his soul for power and has no scruples whatsoever about collateral damage to conventions or institutions, as we also saw with his pursuit of Hansen and One Nation. Frankly, he's scary. "In your guts you know he's nuts".

LNP, please give us Turnbull.

Thank you, Luciferase - precisely!

otb,

SM and I are debating an issue related to the disparity between the treatment of Abbott's expenses claim of $9.400 and Slipper's of $900...and why the Minchin Protocol wasn't applied to Slipper as it was to Abbott (and all other Members and Senators).....and by which means Slipper was referred to the AFP.

You obviously have little idea of what we're discussing.

When I hear you criticising Abbott for his repaid expenses claim, I'll take you seriously.

Have a read of this.

http://nofibs.com.au/2013/07/06/exclusive-abbott-forced-to-repay-taxpayers-9400-he-charged-taxpayers-to-promote-his-book/

Poirot,

You are arguing for Slipper to be let off, yet you don't seem to have any convincing argument to support your view.

It is perefctly reasonable to ask why you would want to let off a barrister who holds one of the highest status, most senior and privileged positions of trust in the land, when lowly citizens of very ordinary means are being charged and pursued daily through courts for lesser offences?

Where it suits your politics offenders can go Scot-free, it appears. Good for some I suppose.

otb,

Disingenuous...

Where have I argued for Slipper to be let off?

What do you mean by let off?

Do you mean being let off as in having the Minchin Protocol applied by Finance like Tony Abbott did?

Like all Members and Senators?

Do you think repaying the money under the Minchin Protocol, as Abbott did, is him being "let off".....because that's what the Minchin Protocol allows for - parliamentarians who have made claims for expenses that they are not entitled to - like Abbott.

I realise that Slipper offered to repay the "$900" under the Minchin Protocol, but was refused that option because someone had referred his expenses to the AFP. It wasn't Finance.

You don't seem to grasp the gist of my argument here.

Do you consider Abbott to have got off "Scot-free" in being allowed to repay after running up "$9,400" in travel allowances and charging the taxpayer for it so he could promote "his" book?

I'm waiting for your critique on Tony Abbott in regard to the nonsense in your last two posts.

otb, are you a complete imbecile?

I apologise for that, otb. Such behaviour towards a poster is never called for.

Just before you or someone complains to GY and I'm sin-binned, on "What Does Mr Abbott Stand For?":

Abbott and Slipper tried pilfering the public purse.

Only one was of them was brought up sharp on this because, with Abbott's undoubted full knowledge of the work of his accomplices in Brough and Ashby, Slipper was referred to the AFP despite cognizance of convention.

Abbott will abuse any institution (eg. the justice system via Ashby, the armed forces in the case of turning back prospective asylum seekers by force to possible maritime distress) and break any convention (eg. Minchin, parliamentary pairing) to get his way. He likes to keep it all looking arm's-length as has been his form in the Slipper and One Nation matters.

Abbott stands for the end justifying any means and keeping his tracks covered. He has been a negative force in Australian politics whose race was run with Rudd's re-emergence and the need for cogent policies and the ability to articulate them.

LNP, please give us Turnbull.